>>
Wes,
I understand your concern with regard to "rules," but would respectfully

like to point out that Smarts has less conditional exceptions by far
that Sharps.
<<

Let me go on record as saying this: I do not think that language works in
the form of restrictions that Sharp's rule lays down, or Smart's rule for
that matter. Smart's rule may in fact be correct and it is more appealing
since it has *less* restrictions than Sharp's rule. I will admit that
Smart's "rule" is set up exactly as is Sharp's rule. If a translator prides
themselves as translating according to rules that have no valid exceptions,
either they:

I've gone back and read Murray Harris' book on pp. 106-7 where his argument
is that one "person" is referred to at John 20:28 because the repetitive MOU
"simply reflects the repetition of the pronominal suffix with copulated
nouns in Hebrew and Aramaic (ftn. Ps.5:3; 34:23 LXX)." Since this argument
does not hold (as you have pointed out), Smart can turn this around and say
that two persons are intended.

But does language work in the form of these kinds of limitations? I will
await an exception and, in the meantime, I will continue to consider the
consistent language of the writer of the book in question. John's conclusion
of the chapter and book was that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
(John 20:31). In harmony with this, even if Thomas directed his remarks at
Jesus, I do not believe that we need to import a centuries later
understanding of QEOS into the text. John's understanding of QEOS MOU was in
harmony with his conclusion at John 20:31.